Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ITO vs. M/s. Superline Construction P. Ltd. that the assessee had duly discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction by banking instruments with documentary evidences. Further the assessee substantiated the details with the documentary evidences as extracted from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India before the Assessing Officer. Thus, this addition is not justified under the provisions of Section 68.
Facts of the Case
ITA No. 3645/Mum/2014
The Assessee is in the business of builder and developer. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. During the year, the assessee received share application money to the tune of Rs.85 lakhs from eight companies out of which Rs.40 lakhs was received from three companies viz. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Alpha Cehmie Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Talent Infoway Ltd. The stand of the assessee has been that the reasons recorded did not whisper about any tangible material which triggered re-opening u/s 147. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) without recording Assessing Officer’s own satisfaction and the information was accepted in a mechanical manner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
